But if a Murali had to bowl more than 10 overs it would lead to more interesting cricket, because batsman wouldn't be able to play him out in ODI's and just look to attack the 5th bowler (which leads to the dead middle overs in odi's when the spinner comes on) they would be forced to take him on as well, and as a result either more runs or more wickets. m ore excitement either way.

Twelve overs though isn't a bad idea for 4 or even just any two of the bowlers.

Not everyone used to play him out, I remember him going for 99 off 10 in an ODI in Australia, and I seem to recall Vettori being offered even more respect than Murali gained.

The middle overs are the dead wood in ODIs, and I don't see that the 5th bowler is the issue given it's quite likely any attacking of him would be done through the middle too, given he wouldn't open the bowling, bowl in powerplays or at the death.

12 overs, as I said, doesn't sound bad to me but I don't think it would breathe life into ODI cricket, or even change it much at all. Until they find a way to play it in 3 hrs, it's on a downward spiral of relevancy (and if some countries continue to insist on painful 7-match series')

Can't pitchers in baseball throw 4 balls intentionally? (I've heard of it happening but never actually seen it occur in a game)

Baseball Pitchers can do that, because there is no wide-ball in Baseball.
Intentional 4-ball tactic is not so rare, particularly in the games in which there is no DH.
This is a video of 5 intentional 4-balls in a row in Japan's High School Baseball national tournament. The Batter is Matui (Matsui), Japan's Baseball legend.

When I saw the OP I hoped Loko might be questioning why it is that in a limited overs match no bowler can deliver more than 20% of the overs, a rule that hasn't changed since 1964, and which I think is well worthy of debate. Instead he has come up with what I think is his silliest idea yet, and that's quite an achievement in the face of some stiff competition

Indeed, I would argue the very opposite of his point.. Allowing bowlers bowl more than 10 in ODIs..

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

I have a question. Is the 20% limitation rule in ODI applied to other limited-over games, such as T20 or YB40?
When I attended a YB40 game, the length of the game was reduced to 29 overs due to rain. In that case, the same 20% limitation applies?

I have a question. Is the 20% limitation rule in ODI applied to other limited-over games, such as T20 or YB40?
When I attended a YB40 game, the length of the game was reduced to 29 overs due to rain. In that case, the same 20% limitation applies?

Yeah it still does. In games where the overs aren't divisible by 5 they usually allow one or two bowlers to bowl an extra over each.

One of the nicest things I've seen in a ODI was Geoffrey Boycott being smashed all over the pack by Viv Richards and Collis King in the 1979 World Cup Final. So I kinda like having the 5th bowler option.

Not really excited by field restrictions though as I reckon the Captain should be free to employ any tactics he wishes. The only reason we have fielding restrictions in the first place is that Mike Brearley decided to stick 10 fielders on the fence during a 1980/81 Day-Nighter when Colin Croft had to hit 4 off the last ball to win the match. So what, and good on him. I like such eccentric things happening as it's one of the reasons why I watch cricket in the first place.

Strip all the rules back back to their most original and purest form, cut the beaurocratic red-tape, and let the captains and players use their imaginations to win the game I say.